Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-11-2014, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,206,481 times
Reputation: 27718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Both, actually.
I think obesity/starvation is the least of our problems now.

This latest batch of illegals (290,000 in the first 6 months of 2014) are more third world than we think.

A mother and her three kids showed up at the local school here to register.
She had her permiso for her and the kids.
The kids had no shoes on. She spoke an indigenous language and the school had to get the HS Spanish teacher to come to the elementary school to try to communicate with her.
This woman thought that the school also provided clothes for them.

Now these 3 kids can't speak either English or Spanish and were put into elementary school.
FWIW they sent her to the local church to get clothes/shoes for the kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2014, 10:49 AM
 
13,628 posts, read 20,690,035 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post




You do know Bitcoin is fiat, right?
fi·at


/ˈfēət,ˈfēˌät/


noun

noun: fiat; plural noun: fiats



A formal authorization or proposition; a decree.

"adopting a legislative review program, rather than trying to regulate by fiat"




synonyms:

decree, edict, order, command, commandment, injunction, proclamation, mandate, dictum, diktat


"a political union imposed through imperial fiat" (why can't we be like Norway?)



Knowlegeiskey:

Live up to your handle. Stop the silliness. Stop changing the subject.

You'll make a fine adult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 10:51 AM
 
6,940 posts, read 9,646,219 times
Reputation: 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
There is no reason to downplay the influence from Norwegian oil. When people make arguments like yours, they seem to only see "net profits" instead of looking at "gross revenue". Net profits are the excess profits after all expenses are paid. Gross revenue is the total value of all sales.

The reason this difference is important, is because salaries in oil production tend to be very high. Those salaries are then taxed at high rates. If for instance the tax rate was 50% for all oil-related workers(since they have high incomes). Then for every dollar they are paid, the government gets back 50 cents.

There are about 2.6 million workers in Norway. Of that 2.6 million, about 40,000 are employed directly in oil extraction. Another 250,000 are employed in petroleum-related activities. These activities will be in things such as refining, manufacture of a variety of petroleum products, transportation, shipbuilding, etc. That number wouldn't include the variety of "support" occupations such as hospitality, food service, construction, etc. In total, half the Norwegian economy can probably be traced back in some way to natural-resource exploitation.

http://www.goinglobal.com/articles/1079/

The best way to look at the scenario would be in asking, what would happen to Norway's GDP and standard-of-living if it was the only country on Earth? Further, does Norway's oil wealth create a spillover effect to the surrounding countries? Especially a country like Denmark who relies heavily on shipping/trade from its advantageous location.

Yes, Norway's economy was growing before it found oil, but it is much easier to grow an economy when it is playing "catch-up" to the rest of the world. Many developing countries are having double-digit economic growth. That isn't possible in an already developed economy.


As for Norway's "system". We need to keep in mind that Norway isn't really socialist. A socialist government controls all means of production. Norway has "nationalized" a few industries, but none of those industries are in retail or manufacturing. Norway has mainly nationalized its natural resources and medicine, and provided a strong social-safety net/welfare system for the needy.

While everyone recognizes that nationalized medicine "isn't as good" and that oil extraction technology would be slowed by a government takeover of the industry. Norway gets around those shortcomings by simply taking the oil revenue and buying American medical and oil extraction technology.


Basically, Norway's isn't a system that America could "adopt". That isn't to say that there isn't anything good about Norway.

Norway's primary virtue is its "stability". Stability is actually the one necessary ingredient for economic growth. It doesn't matter how liberal an economy is, if you are fighting a Civil War, you will not have economic growth.

The truth is, any national program, redistributive or not, is always designed for the purpose of increasing stability and social cohesion. In many ways, the welfare programs of 20th century America actually protected the rich more than they did the poor. You don't want a bunch of jobless, starving poor people running around Manhattan angry. That is a recipe for a lot rich people's heads rolling down fifth avenue.

The rich mans mantra should really be "Keep them working, keep them fed, keep them healthy, and you probably won't get shot."(Got French Revolution?).


With that said, America is slightly more complicated because America isn't a "unified nation". In America, we might all secretly hate the rich, but social programs affect the middle-class as well. And America's middle class tend to think of the poor not such much as "Americans", but rather as "others". This is why "welfare queens" are usually depicted as blacks or Hispanics.

In Norway, at least until the recent influx of Middle-Eastern immigrants, it wasn't nearly as easy to attack the poor, because the poor were Norwegians just like everyone else. On top of that, in a "nationalist" society, there are a lot of social/civic obligations for helping the people around you. The influx of "foreigners" tends to erode this "civic virtue".

This is something that has been documented, not only by conservatives but also by liberals. The more diversity, the less people care about the people around them.

The downside of diversity - The Boston Globe

Schumpeter's notebook: The downside of diversity | The Economist


Which is why I always find it ironic that the liberals who want to expand the social-safety net, are creating the conditions through immigration and racial/ethnic policy that makes that difficult if not impossible. They do it because immigrants tend to vote for handouts. The problem is, they are creating the divisiveness in society that could eventually rupture the entire country.

We can see that in Europe as well. The "Nordic model" is collapsing and will collapse from the weight of immigration/diversity. As much as I hate nationalism, you cannot have any sense of national identity in a multicultural society. The natural way of humanity is tribalism. You are working against human nature and you will lose, eventually.

America has become nothing more than a union of convenience. The fault lines are going in all directions, it is only a matter of time before America is no more.


What about Sweden, Finland, and Denmark? They've managed to sustain a high standard of living without the dependency of oil. Besides, Norway is investing in its population by investing in education, so that its citizens can prepare for post oil boom.

Ericsson and Nokia are native Scandinavian companies. Nordic societies invest in information industries as a growth model. You can't depend on resources for growth. If that was the case, Africa would have some of the most prosperous societies in the world.

Last edited by knowledgeiskey; 09-11-2014 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 10:52 AM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,727,711 times
Reputation: 1336
For one reason, Americans generally like to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them...LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 10:58 AM
 
6,940 posts, read 9,646,219 times
Reputation: 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
For one reason, Americans generally like to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them...LOL
The problem is that American income is mal-distributed and allocated. How about we shrink the military budget and direct funding to social programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 11:04 AM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,727,711 times
Reputation: 1336
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
The problem is that American income is mal-distributed and allocated. How about we shrink the military budget and direct funding to social programs.
Fine with me. We should defund the military so that it can only afford to defend our borders. Close down all foreign bases, wars, "actions", etc. Military spending is completely out of control and is nowhere even close to the spending of any other nation on earth. We throw so much money in interest to banks and the weapons manufacturers that it is beyond an embarrassing handout.

As much as I might think that social engineering is evil, killing Americans for the profit of Central Bankers and the military industrial complex is far worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,157,147 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
You do know Bitcoin is fiat, right?
Well, it depends a bit on the definition of fiat. Many believe that all money is fiat money, regardless of whether or not it is based on a commodity. Because even commodities can fluctuate significantly in value.

All Money Is Fiat Money - Forbes


In the case of bitcoin, I think the primary draw is that there is a limited supply which cannot be manipulated through a central bank. This, at least hypothetically, should prevent long-term inflation. Of course, over the short-term it has been used basically as an investment, and is prone to huge amounts of speculation.


As long as bitcoin's value remains unstable, it is unlikely to be useful in the sale/purchase of day to day goods. And if it doesn't have much use for purchasing goods, then bitcoin won't ever have any sort of "intrinsic value" regardless of its scarcity. It will continue to be treated more like an investment than a currency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 11:09 AM
 
46,837 posts, read 25,764,732 times
Reputation: 29318
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I think obesity/starvation is the least of our problems now.
Sorta depends on who you ask, I suspect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 12:01 PM
 
13,278 posts, read 7,817,175 times
Reputation: 2138
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
We have an obesity problem in the US, not a starvation problem.
When SNAP is approved for Monster, potato chips, soda and easter baskets that should tell you something about the fraud and waste.
Carbs, man.

Carbs.

Some think that a carbon tax would solve the obesity problem.

Carbonated soda heads are the problem.

Fat got carbon, too; you can burn it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2014, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,157,147 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
What about Sweden, Finland, and Denmark? They've managed to sustain a high standard of living without the dependency of oil. Besides, Norway is investing in its population by investing in education, so that its citizens can prepare for post oil boom.

Ericsson and Nokia are native Scandinavian companies. Nordic societies invest in information industries as a growth model. You can't depend on resources for growth. If that was the case, Africa would have some of the most prosperous societies in the world.

Well, those countries are certainly not nearly as dependent on natural resources as Norway, but they aren't exactly without natural resources.

If we look at just oil for a minute. Denmark produces 262,000 barrels a day compared to America's 8.1 million. The United States has a population about 55 times greater than Denmark's. If we adjusted for population, Denmark's per-capita production of oil is nearly twice as high as the United States. Keeping in mind our current economic recovery has been fueled almost entirely from the fracking oil boom.

Sweden relies heavily on its natural resources as well. But in Sweden's case, it is Iron ore and timber. In World War II, Germany was so reliant on the Iron produced in Sweden, that Hitler occupied Denmark and Norway to prevent Britain from cutting off Germany's access to Sweden's resources.


Regardless, we need to keep in mind that adjacent countries tend to support each other economically. If Mexico wasn't our neighbor it would probably be a lot poorer. The proximity of Denmark, Finland, and Sweden to Norway certainly helps their economies. The "rise of Scandinavia" largely coincides with the rise of Norway and its oil wealth. If you removed Norway and Sweden from the region, Denmark and Finland would probably be significantly poorer.

I mean, even if you dropped Norway and all its oil into the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it would be just as wealthy. If you dropped Denmark into the middle of the Pacific, it would be significantly poorer. If you took all the natural resources away from all of those countries and split them up. Finland would be the wealthiest, then Sweden, then Denmark then Norway in last place.


As for "investing in education". I have a tendency to cringe at the notion that anything good comes out of government investing in education. I think education is incredibly important. I think individuals want to be educated to the extent that they individually value education. But I think people too often associate education with going to college and getting a degree. In America, at least half of all college degrees seem to be completely wasted. Getting a college degree in many cases is less about learning a marketable skill, and more about just having a degree.

People who get college degrees in almost all cases are employed by "someone else". In fact, a surprising number of businesses were founded by people who either never got a formal education, or dropped out of college to pursue their entrepreneurial activities.

If you are trying to get a degree so you can just work for someone else, then obviously there is a demand for people with that set of skills. As an employer, you will seek out people with the skills necessary for the position you have available. If for some reason there was a lack of people with those skills, it would be in your interest to create training programs to make sure you always had access to people with the required educations/training. In the past, a lot more companies offered "on-the-job training" and other types of education programs.


In my view, government's don't really invest in education in the practical sense, because their investment is basically completely unnecessary and largely wasteful. There are two effects of public-education. One is "equality". Making sure everyone has access to a quality education is an egalitarian principle. The second is about offloading the cost of education away from employers onto the public. This is a huge benefit for employers who don't have to spend nearly as much to educate and train their employees.




The point is, I don't believe that America would have been any worse off intellectually if there never had been a public-education system. Much of America's rise to economic prominence was long before we had anything remotely resembling a public-education system.

In my view, you can make a better argument that government should be investing in technology startups and other businesses, rather than education. And that would probably be a lot cheaper. Something like a government sponsored "kickstarter".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top